you can spout your propaganda as much as you like but at the end of the day the Bitcoin Core developers are writing node software for the 5000+ people running node software .... not for anyone else, by definition.

Anyone else who feels like they are part of the "bitcoin community" by running bitcoinJ on their phones or web wallet with Coinbase should talk to their software providers if they want to have anything changed (fee market handling and speedy confirmations are features that come to mind). "Bitcoin community governance" is a made-up myth, you are either running a node and you have node resource concerns, so will run the software most appropriate to solve those, or you are essentially an onlooker, maybe even wearing a beer-can cap, but still a bystander.

Denying the very existence of Bitcoin governance is not helping your case. After all there are decisions that need to be made, and there are differing opinions on what path to take. It is the question of who decides? I suppose you would argue that Core should decide for us, or that somehow they decide yet that is not a form of governance? Everything is political, whether you like it or not. As Socrates once wisely stated, human beings are political animals.

This thread refuses to die in the same way that BIP101 refuses to die.

BIP101 is dead. It is only your perverted necromancy that seems determined to parade and dance with the corpse.

There is no governance except in your demented mind. Nodes run whatever software they like and that decision will be decidedly apolitical.

Take your politics back to Washington, they have no power and are not welcomed here.

you can spout your propaganda as much as you like but at the end of the day the Bitcoin Core developers are writing node software for the 5000+ people running node software .... not for anyone else, by definition.

Anyone else who feels like they are part of the "bitcoin community" by running bitcoinJ on their phones or web wallet with Coinbase should talk to their software providers if they want to have anything changed (fee market handling and speedy confirmations are features that come to mind). "Bitcoin community governance" is a made-up myth, you are either running a node and you have node resource concerns, so will run the software most appropriate to solve those, or you are essentially an onlooker, maybe even wearing a beer-can cap, but still a bystander.

I prefer their understanding of free market economics and Bitcoin governance specifically.

"bitcoin governance" is a myth concept that has been generated by the MIT media lab as a divisive issue. The term was not in circulation until Brian Forde began pumping the "bitcoin governance" propaganda soon after taking up his role after leaving the Obama Whitehouse.

He was never around before December 2010. As an example, sirius started using Bitcoin in November 2009, Theymos started using Bitcoin in February 2010, knightmb, mizerydearia, Syke and MoonShadow were using Bitcoin from July 2010 and there's about 100 people that were working on Bitcoin when he showed up. He was relatively late to the party. The fool makes it sound like he invented Bitcoin. ROFL

I agree, this description of Hearn's has other misdirections and falsehoods.

The pioneers of smart contracts were obviously Nick Szabo, for theoretical basis, and the first working prototype smart contracts platform was fellowtraveller's Open-Transactions and then Ethereum ... Lighthouse was definitely after these, and is too limited to be referred to as a "smart contracts pioneer".

BTC has the bad habit of always leaving behind their old ATH by at least 1 order of magnitude.

This is indeed just a warm-up

They also said bit coin never goes below it's old all time high. That didn't work out so well for anyone banking on it. Going above 1000 and settling there is a big task. It's gonna take a while.

in terms of market cap value, it has never gone below it's old all time high ... your calculation essentially omitted the 15-10% inflation we have had for last 3 years by only looking at price, not total market value.

Why stop there? Lets put TXIDs, scriptsigs, and addresses into separate data structures and calculate merkle trees for each. Now the block chain doesn't need to have ANY of that data in it. We can SHA256 a cat of all the merkle roots and now every block has 256 bits only! We can now fit infinite spam in the chain.

Bitcoin moves across borders relatively frictionlessly and speedily (10 mins to hours not days). This creates lots of seemingly bizarre global arbitrage opportunities ... the same 9k btc can be sold on a western exchange and back being bid up in china within an hour. Large cross-border fiat settlements take 3-5 business days at best.

Chinese BTC is getting sold on Western exchanges? Shouldn't we be seeing a bit more (as in 'corresponding') volume if that's the case?

.... guess you missed the friday night dump in your razor-sharp focus there? 29k in 3 mins, probably some room for chinese btc in that flood.

So what you're telling me is bitcoin's blinding 10-minute transaction speed is instrumental in getting BTC super fast on western exchanges, where it is made to sit for days, until there's enough of it to crash the price if sold in one gigantic lump? The trick's to lose as much money as possible?That's how arbitrage works? Help me out here.

.... why should I help you out? You sound a bit too slow to be helped that much tbh.

Bitcoin moves across borders relatively frictionlessly and speedily (10 mins to hours not days). This creates lots of seemingly bizarre global arbitrage opportunities ... the same 9k btc can be sold on a western exchange and back being bid up in china within an hour. Large cross-border fiat settlements take 3-5 business days at best.

Chinese BTC is getting sold on Western exchanges? Shouldn't we be seeing a bit more (as in 'corresponding') volume if that's the case?

.... guess you missed the friday night dump in your razor-sharp focus there? 29k in 3 mins, probably some room for chinese btc in that flood.

Garzik already submitted BIP102, which I think would be an acceptable "can kick" to further study the issue and possible solutions... The conference is over, and there is no plan in sight. I don't really think a controversial overhaul of the system in the form of SegWit is going to offer any relief, any time soon.

heh, so that's the disingenuous spin you guys are going to use for redditard herp's consumption is it? Any of the latest breakthrough improvements that are not approved by the benevolent, wise, central committee guardians and protectors of the free shit derp army are now going to be a "controversial overhaul of the system" ??

Unless of course we raised blocksize (bigger fat wheels are ok for the beer-can hat brigade).